Road Safety Bill [Lords] - Standing Committee A

[Janet Anderson in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill [Lords]

Clause 11 - Financial penalty deposits

Amendmentmoved [this day]:No. 49, in clause 11, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
‘(c)that the motor vehicle is not registered in the United Kingdom, and
(d)that the person is not resident at an address in the United Kingdom or an address in the United Kingdom at which the constable considers it likely that it will be possible to find the person.’.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Janet Anderson: I remind hon. Members that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
No. 51, in clause 11, page 10, line 7, leave out from ‘in’ to ‘and’ and insert
‘cash, bank-backed funds, debit card, credit card or cleared cheque’.
No. 52, in clause 11, page 10, line 11, leave out
‘in an order made by the Secretary of State’
and insert
‘up to a maximum of £2,500’.’

Stephen Hammond: To conclude my earlier remarks, I ask the Minister again why the deposit figure cannot be included in the Bill. If the amount of deposit we are talking about differs from the figure that I have proposed, will he give us a clear explanation why?

Lee Scott: We were talking about foreign cars in Britain. In my constituency there are many vehicles belonging to builders who come to England with no abode here whatsoever. It would be impossible for the police authorities to find them. A deposit and fine as proposed in the amendment would therefore be beneficial. The owners of such vehicles are not usually citizens of European Union states, so they are difficult to find, and I would be doubtful about the viability of the vehicles on our roads in the first place. I hope that the Minister can answer that.

Owen Paterson: I shall be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has given us a good introduction to the amendments. I want to chip in to support them.
The Minister kindly gave me a written reply in January that showed a spectacular increase in the number of foreign registered vehicles coming to this  country. The number has gone from 671,000 in 1997 up to 1,595,000 in 2004. That highlights some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned.
We wholeheartedly welcome what the Government are trying to do in the clause, although I believe that our amendments would beef it up. It is worth pointing out that the Freight Transport Association also welcomes the moves to fine foreign lorry drivers. It has sent me a memo saying that
“it is not possible to give foreign drivers an endorseable fixed penalty notice and when they are summonsed or issued with a non-endorseable fixed penalty notice, there is no mechanism to ensure that they do not evade punishment by leaving the country.”
The matter has been brought to my attention several times by hauliers in this country, who feel that there is inequity. They feel particularly strongly about regulation, and I wonder whether the Minister could deal with that point. There is a feeling that our haulage industry is better regulated, and that our vehicles are better maintained and more money is spent on them. It may be anecdotal, but there is a gut feeling among our hauliers that the foreign trucks coming into the country are less well maintained. I hope that what we are trying to do today will give the authorities the ability to stop trucks that may not be as well maintained as our domestic fleet.
Generally we support the clause, although I also support our amendments.

Paul Rowen: We also welcome the Government’s proposals. We agree about the seemingly innocuous way in which foreign lorry drivers have so far been able to evade the normal penalties faced by our truck drivers. We have no problem with the amendment, as it seems to tidy up and make more explicit what the Government seek to do. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Stephen Ladyman: Before I speak to the Opposition amendments, I have an offer to make to Opposition Members that I hope will provide them with some of the reassurance that they sought earlier—in particular, for the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), if he is brave enough to take the offer up. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has kindly agreed to take members of the Committee out with it to give them a practical demonstration of how it operates, its training standards and its swinish qualities. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman may have an enjoyable afternoon with the agency if he wishes to take up that offer. I hope that that reassures Opposition Members.
The purpose of the clause is quite clear. Some people who cannot be issued with a penalty notice simply do not answer their summons. Others do not have a proper address. People from abroad sometimes ignore the penalty notice; they go home and do not pay the fine. That must stop, and we are determined to ensure that it does so. That is why we want to take a deposit from people who the police have reasonable grounds to believe do not have a fixed UK address. Under the amendment, that could happen only to people who are driving a registered foreign vehicle, but such provision  would not deal with people from abroad who are driving a hired vehicle and who would be just as likely to abscond without paying their fine. That is why we feel that the clause should be passed as it stands.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon also asked for details such as the size of any deposit to be stated in the Bill. The idea is that the deposit would be the same as the fine or the fixed penalty. The intention is not merely to ask for a particular sum and then refund people any surplus. The police officer or whoever is taking the deposit will make a judgment as to what the appropriate penalty notice or fine is and take that amount. Clearly if the person involved decides to challenge the accusation and is subsequently found to be innocent they will get their money back. There is no question about that, but the idea is that the officer would take as a deposit the money that would otherwise be paid as a fine.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister may be clarifying the point that I wanted to raise. Let us assume that the decision is challenged in the court or that the offender is someone whose offences tot up to 12 points, and the court imposes a higher sum than the fixed penalty notice. In such cases, would not the police officer potentially want to take a larger deposit?

Stephen Ladyman: I would hope that ultimately the police will be able to inspect the driver record, which the Committee is happily agreed now will be the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database. At the point of having the discussion with the motorist, the police will have access to that information and know that the individual has numerous endorsable offences and that the case should automatically go to court.
At present, whatever an individual from abroad has done, he can simply go home and ignore the fine. By introducing a deposit system, we are at least putting in place measures to ensure that people must face the consequences of their actions and pay the fine that is likely to be allocated. Specifying the fine in the Bill would not be appropriate. We are not just talking about speeding tickets. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out, we are also talking about heavy goods vehicles and lorries.
I do not claim that Britain does everything better than everyone else and that foreign vehicles are automatically less well maintained. That is not true. Many foreign vehicles come into this country that are run by perfectly reputable companies and maintained to the highest standards possible. Equally there are some that are not maintained to those high standards, and also some British lorry drivers do not maintain their vehicles to the high standard that we would want.
We have to enforce the rules of roadworthiness with an even hand, irrespective of whose vehicle we are looking at. At the moment we cannot do that, because we know that the only people who will have to pay their fines if they are driving with an unroadworthy vehicle are British hauliers. We are simply creating a system in which people who come from abroad who have not met the standards that we require for our roads will have to pay their fines and deal with the problem.

Henry Bellingham: We have dealt with fines and deposits, but what about persistent offenders who get so many points that if they had a UK licence, they would lose it? How do we take some of those persistent offenders off the road? The Minister mentioned that the records will now be with the DVLA, but how will the police know how many previous offences a driver has?

Stephen Ladyman: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to drivers from abroad?

Henry Bellingham: Yes.

Stephen Ladyman: That comes back to the point that I made earlier to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire: ultimately, the only way to deal with that problem is for countries to recognise each other’s legal systems and driving licences. Incidentally, I understand that although the thrust of my explanation on that subject earlier was accurate, I may have misled the Committee about which directive was involved. I intend to write to the Committee to clarify that, but the point that I was making is valid.
We need to move to a system in which every country in the EU can access information about drivers in another country, and we need to recognise one another’s driving licences. We need to bring into play a system in which totting-up arrangements and the legal systems of each country are understood, so that we can make sure that penalties and endorsements gained in one country are recognised in another. There is no short-term answer to the problem, I am afraid. It is going to take a very long time. We have to deal as best we can with the immediate problem that we in this country face, and the clause helps us to do that, particularly together with the amendments that we shall soon discuss.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister. He has answered the point; the Government are trying to make progress, but obviously it will be difficult to deal with those overseas drivers. What happens if a driver from one of the accession countries—say, Poland, Estonia or Slovenia—commits a very serious offence, such as drunken driving, and the court wants to take him off the road? The Minister has discussed the dimension of fines, deposits and even impounding the vehicle—we will come to that later—but if the court actually wants to take the driver off the road, how does it ensure that that happens, and that a Polish driver working in my constituency does not just borrow a car from a friend and go on driving?

Stephen Ladyman: I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify how that would happen. Frankly, under the present arrangements, in which there is no mutual recognition of one another’s driving licences, it would probably be possible for such an individual to continue driving on a driving licence issued in another country. That is certainly a very important factor, and we need to move towards regulating for such situations. That is not what the clause is about, but I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I am very worried about the problem. I am keen to push forward on that with EU colleagues.
I now come to the final part of the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. If a policeman believes that an offence is serious enough to go to court, where a higher fine could be imposed than the deposit, then the deposit that he will ask for will be commensurate with the higher potential fine. So if the individual answers the summons and goes to court and the court imposes a lower fine, clearly we will have to give that individual some of the money back. If the individual does not answer the summons, or if he did and the court imposes a higher fine, we will already have the money in place to be able to deal with the situation.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister say something about amendment No. 51 and how he envisages payment being made? When the system is up and running, will a person who is asked for a deposit and who may be anxious to complete his journey but does not have sufficient cash be able to offer a credit or debit card to pay the deposit? Will the vehicle examiner have one of the mobile machines that are now coming on the market on which they can dial up the credit card company to ascertain that the money is there and that the transfer can be made?

Stephen Ladyman: That is exactly why we want the clause to stand part as it is, without the amendment. We want to be able to prescribe how money can be paid, and we will make that decision according to what is most practical. We may want to start off with cash payments only and, when it becomes possible, move to using mobile credit card collection systems. We may want vehicle inspectors and the police to carry credit card devices with them straight away. We want an opportunity to be able to prescribe by order how the money is paid, and we do not want to be restricted to something that is in the Bill, as suggested by the amendment, which I presume is a probing amendment.
 Finally, if a driver from abroad were found to be committing a serious offence such as being drunk in charge of a vehicle and taken to a court in this country, the court would, of course, disqualify him. However, as we do not have mutual recognition of driving licences, he could presumably go home to his own country and carry on driving. The only two EU countries where that will not happen in the future are the United Kingdom and Ireland, which have signed an accord to move towards mutual recognition of disqualification. The sooner we sign similar agreements with the other 23 partner states, the better.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for some of his responses on our amendments. I understand why he wishes us not to proceed, and I look forward to learning how he will expand on the methods of payment in particular. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 11, page 12, line 44, at end insert—
‘(8)Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under this section and about their removal and disposal.’.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 4.
Government amendment No. 11.
Government new clause 4—Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles.
Government new schedule 1—Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles.

Stephen Ladyman: When we originally published the Bill, it included the deposit scheme, as we just discussed, but in consulting on how to move forward, many people asked what we would do if the person refused to pay the deposit. Usually, such a person would be from abroad, possibly driving a foreign vehicle, and they may be on their way out of the country. If they refused to pay the deposit in the knowledge that they would not be coming back here, got back into their vehicle and left the country, how would we make them pay it? It was at that point that we decided we had to go further than we originally proposed, so we introduced these changes to the clause to allow the police and others to immobilise a vehicle if for some reason the individual is unable to pay the deposit or is for some reason resistant to paying it.
The offences where immobilisation is appropriate are those where there would be a prohibition on moving the vehicle, such as with an offence of driving an unroadworthy vehicle. The vehicle should not be moved if a policeman has decided that it is unroadworthy. In such a case, we would clearly want to immobilise it. However, if a vehicle were stopped for any other offence, the police asked for a deposit and it was not paid, immobilisation would also be appropriate.
The amendments are relatively straightforward, and I hope that they will have the support of the whole Committee. We have all agreed that the deposit system is an important step forward in enforcing our road rules; the amendments are essential to make it practical and ensure that it can be enforced.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is right; the amendments will enable the practical implementation of what we all agree should happen.
The Minister spoke about a number of cases of immobilisation, and I should like to be clear on one point: is it the intention that every vehicle stopped should be immobilised until the deposit is paid? My wife always complains that I never have any cash in my wallet, so if payment could be made only in cash, would I—or, say, my foreign cousin—have to get out of the car and walk to a cash machine, or would we be allowed to drive there?
Will every car be immobilised until the driver has physically paid the money to the constable, the VOSA examiner or whoever, or are we saying that we think certain people would refuse to pay? Like the Minister this morning, I could be cynical and think that some people would promise to pay, drive off supposedly to get the money, but not pay.

Stephen Ladyman: The deposit arrangements would bite only if the officer believed that he might not be able to enforce a fixed penalty or fine in the normal way. As a reputable character with an address, the hon. Gentleman would not be expected to pay the deposit. However, his foreign cousin, who might not have a UK address or be able to give the reassurances, might have to pay it.
I envisage that the police will have discretion in how they handle such matters. If an individual just wanted to go around the corner and take money from the cash machine, the policeman might sit in the car, rather than immobilise it, until they had done so. Equally, if the vehicle was unroadworthy because of a bald tyre, the policeman might think it appropriate, before the driver was allowed to move on, to escort the vehicle around the corner to Kwik-Fit for the tyre to be replaced. So a little discretion will be needed, but immobilising vehicles for all such offences would be a possibility.

Paul Rowen: On new schedule 1, will the Minister explain the circumstances in which he envisages that a disabled person will be exempt? If someone drives an unroadworthy vehicle, it should not matter whether they have a disabled badge; their vehicle should be immobilised until the defect is put right.

Greg Knight: It is also fair to say that in certain circumstances a person who lived here and was driving a UK-registered vehicle might be stopped and required to pay a deposit. I am thinking of an itinerant family towing a caravan in a car that is in a dreadful state and whose road tax is out of date. In such circumstances, those people, although British, should be made to pay a deposit. Otherwise, we all know what would happen—they would disappear into the ether.
I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about the new schedule. On the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), I presume that the regulations will refer to a valid disabled person’s badge being used by the person to whom it was issued, not merely to a badge on display that was not valid for that particular person. We are considering disabled people. I can understand circumstances in which the person is so severely disabled that if the vehicle were immobilised, that person would also be immobilised.
My main point concerns the removal and disposal of vehicles. The provision is rather vague. There may be nothing sinister about it, but paragraph 4(4) states:
“The regulations may provide that the person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered may dispose of it, and may in particular make provision as to—
(a) the time at which the vehicle may be disposed of, and
(b) the manner in which it may be disposed of.”
Can the Minister assure us that when the regulations are formulated, it is his intention that the vehicle will be disposed of at a fair price? What will happen if a real owner thereafter claims his vehicle, but cannot have it back because it has been disposed of? Does the Minister envisage that fair compensation will be paid in such circumstances?

Stephen Ladyman: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale about disabled people. They should have roadworthy vehicles and obey the rules of the road the same as everyone else. We must accept, however, that they are in a different position. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire put it well when he said that if someone was genuinely disabled and had a blue badge on their car, immobilising the car might well immobilise that person. That may not always happen. The person may be driven by an able-bodied person or it may be possible to make other travel arrangements.However, I would not want to be responsible for a change in the law that meant that an over-zealous officer in the future clamped a disabled person’s vehicle in the middle of nowhere simply because it had a bald tyre, and left the person there. That is not what we are about. We must allow some leeway when dealing with special cases.
I can give the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire the assurance that he seeks about what would happen if a person’s vehicle was disposed of. We would retain the amount that we felt was appropriate to meet the person’s deposit or fine, and he would be entitled to the surplus back. Equally, the person would be entitled to get the property or its value back were it proven that they should not have been stopped in the first place. In any event, that is our intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in clause 11, page 13, line 47, at end insert
‘(3)Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited and about their removal and disposal.’.— [Dr. Ladyman.]

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - High risk offenders: medical enquiries following disqualification

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: I shall not detain the Committee long. We are in general agreement that it is sensible that the Secretary of State should have power to hold back high-risk offenders while they are being assessed for their medical condition as alcoholics. There are several clauses on alcohol. I should like to hear the Minister’s view on a disturbing trend that I have read about recently in press reports: as a result of longer licensing hours, more drink drivers are being picked up the following day after drinking. Can he elaborate on  that? I have received information from West Mercia, where one in every five drink-drivers are now being arrested the following day. Jenny Wynn, director of the Telford Training Consultants group, a rehabilitation group, said that
“we have seen an increase in drivers caught ‘the morning after’ which is most probably due to the increase in licensing hours. With pubs opening later people are now drinking into the early hours and while getting a taxi home at night they are still over the limit when driving to work the next morning.”
A total of 1,495 drink drivers were caught last year, which is in an increase of 37 on the previous year in West Mercia.
I know that that is a general point related to alcohol, but does the Minister have any information on it? On the specifics of clause 12, we think the proposal tightens up the loophole. It is a sensible clause and we support it.

Stephen Ladyman: I do not have any information to hand on that particular issue.
To be fair, successive Governments and police forces have made strenuous efforts over the years to remind drivers that they might think that they are sober when they wake up in the morning but if they have had a real skinful the night before often they might still be over the limit, although they might not still be feeling all the effects. I have no information as to whether such situations are occurring increasingly, but I will look into it, to see what I can find out.
The clause simply closes a loophole where certain people who were convicted of drink-driving were able to retain their licences before the Secretary of State had made the determination that they were fit to get their licence back. It was never the intention of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that they should be able to do that. It was simply a loophole created by a drafting error, which the clause fixes.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Period of endorsement for failure to allow specimen to be tested

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Alcohol—prescribed limits—
‘(1)The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows—
(2)In section 11(2) the meaning of “the prescribed limit” is amended as follows—
(a)in (a) leave out “35” and insert “22”;
(b)in (b) leave out “80” and insert “50”; and
(c)in (c) leave out “107” and insert “67”.
(3)In section 8(2) leave out “50” and insert “35”.’.
New clause 2—Breath testing—
‘(1)Where a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes that incidents involving persons driving on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs may take place, he may give an authorisation that the powers to administer preliminary tests conferred by this section shall be exercisable on that road or place for a period not exceeding 24 hours.
(2)If it appears to an officer of or above the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any activity falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue in being for a further 24 hours.
(3)If an inspector gives an authorisation under subsection (1) he must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of or above the rank of superintendent to be informed.
(4)This section confers on any constable in uniform power to administer—
(a)a preliminary breath test,
(b)a preliminary impairment test, or
(c)a preliminary drugs testpursuant to the provisions of sections 6A to 6D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52).
(5)A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, administer any preliminary tests he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that alcohol or drugs have been consumed.
(6)A person who without reasonable excuse fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and four penalty points or discretionary disqualification or both.
(7)Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the grounds on which it is given and the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (2) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
(8)Where a preliminary test is administered by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the test was administered under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the test was administered.
(9)In this section—
“vehicle” includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c. 62)
“preliminary breath test” means a test as specified in section 6A of the Road Traffic Act 1988
“preliminary impairment test” means a test as specified in section 6B of the Road Traffic Act 1988
“preliminary drugs test” means a test as specified in section 6C of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(10)The powers conferred by this section are not in derogation of any other powers conferred.’.

David Kidney: Thank you, Mrs. Anderson. It is a pleasure to be serving on a Committee so ably chaired by yourself and Sir Nicholas. I thank you both for selecting new clauses 1 and 2 with this stand part debate in order for such an important subject to be properly and fully debated in Committee.
On drink-driving, it is worth pointing out that other measures in the Bill are welcome: increased use of retraining courses; mandatory retesting of drivers disqualified for 24 months or more; and, as we have just heard, the closure of the loophole regarding high-risk offenders driving again before they have been medically assessed as safe to do so.
It is also worth remembering that in the Road Safety Bill that did not make it on to the statute book last year was a measure that subsequently found a home in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: the ability for the police to carry out evidential road-side breath testing so that they need not take people back to police stations to ascertain that they are definitely over the limit and committing an offence.
All those things are welcome, but new clauses 1 and 2 suggest that the Bill does not go far enough in tackling drink-driving. It is worth at the outset assessing the scale of the problem. Is there a problem that we, as politicians, should be tackling? I suggest that there is. In 2004, 590 people were killed on our roads because of someone drinking and driving. That figure is almost 20 per cent.—it is exactly 18 per cent.—of all that year’s road fatalities. Some of those people were drink-driving, and they crashed and killed themselves. In that sense, they brought it on themselves, but some took with them their passengers or completely innocent people in other vehicles who did not know that a drink-driver was approaching. Some of the drink-drivers survived their crash and just left other families to pick up the consequences of family bereavements. Any of us who have met the relatives of someone who has been killed on the road knows how deeply distressing it is for grieving families.

Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that he is talking about drivers who are already in breach of our law and are therefore committing an existing offence and will lose their licence for at least 12 months?

David Kidney: Yes, these are people who are over the present limit. I am happy to make that clarification for the right hon. Gentleman.
As I said, in 2004, 590 people were killed on our roads. If that figure is multiplied by 20, it still does not come to the total who were injured due to people driving while over the legal drink-drive limit: in 2003, 15,000 people were injured; in 2004, 17,000 people were injured. Therefore, although the Government are making good progress to meet the targets in the 2000 road safety strategy, “Tomorrow’s Roads—Safer for Everyone”, which by 2010 are to
“reduce the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent.”,
drink-driving fatalities are a stubborn exception to the overall downward trend.
Since 1998, the number of deaths caused by drink-driving has stopped falling. In fact, it is going in the opposite direction. The figure of 590 is a rise from the year before, which was a rise from the year before that. There is evidence, therefore, that the situation is getting worse instead of better, and that is why there is a need for action. What can be done, and what does new clause 1 seek to do?
The present drink-driving limit was set in section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the following information can be found on page 19 of House of Commons research paper—

Henry Bellingham: Before the hon. Gentleman goes into technical detail and talks about millilitres per whatever, will he consider this more general point? About 20 years ago, many people exerted a great deal of pressure to make it clear to young drivers that drinking and driving is extremely serious and antisocial. In recent years, that peer pressure seems to have become less intense. Do a small minority of drivers believe that they can get away with drinking and driving? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that worrying trend?

David Kidney: I agree that over the past couple of decades, this country has achieved dramatic success in making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. In fact, on any normal day, if we were to test everyone on the roads, we would find that 97 per cent. of drivers would have a blood-alcohol level of either zero or fewer than 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. Our campaigns have been successful, but the hon. Gentleman is right, a worrying trend has developed recently, and some people—often younger people—are driving with more alcohol in their blood. The trend among younger people is perhaps because the pressure to make drink-driving socially unacceptable was not sustained and younger drivers do not understand how unacceptable it is.
There are, however, other pressures. The hon. Member for North Shropshire referred to the Licensing Act 2003, and we must consider also trends in the licensing trade, such as the strength of drinks and the size of glasses.

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has just said that 97 per cent. of people on the roads are found to be driving with no alcohol in their blood—

David Kidney: Or fewer than 50 mg per 100 ml.

Stephen Hammond: That probably exemplifies the problem. The police superintendent with whom I did a tour of duty for one afternoon last year told me that the problem with drink-driving is not the people just under the limit, or even the need to lower the limits. The problem—and the reason why deaths are increasing—is the number of people who are continually, persistently a long way over the limit. I am interested to hear where the hon. Gentleman is going to lead us, but I am not sure that his proposal will attack that problem.

David Kidney: I will happily deal with that in a moment, because I want to persuade the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench team and my own Front Benchers that, although it is important to tackle the 1 per cent. of drivers who are always massively over the limit—the answer to that is of course increased detection and punishment and taking them off the roads, with which new clause 2 would help—I am at the moment concerned with the other 2 per cent. who, as the hon. Gentleman said, are somewhere near the legal limit. Those are the people who are causing some of the 590 deaths a year and whom new clause 1 would tackle.

Stephen Hammond: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point. My party wants to be much tougher on serial drink-driving offenders, and I hope that he will support our later amendments to that effect.

David Kidney: We will look at that when we get to it.
I was just setting out the present legal limit: 35 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath; 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood; or 107 mg in 100 ml of urine. Obviously, they are all intended to be roughly the same limit, but the one on which I shall concentrate, so that I can consistently refer to the same thing, is the limit of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The new clause would reduce those limits. For our roads, I say that the limit should be 50 mg instead of 80 mg.
What does that mean to motorists? Some bodies—I may pick out the British Medical Association, alcohol awareness charities such as Alcohol Concern, and the industry-funded Portman Group—point out that modern developments in the licensing trade have undermined some comfortable assumptions that were often made in the past. They were assumptions, of which we were all guilty, about how much it is safe to drink while still being able to get into a car and drive without breaking the law.
I remember that in my youth we all used to think that we were safely under the limit after two pints of bitter. However, stronger alcohol concentrations have developed, not just in beers and wines but in the whole range of drinks. People’s assumptions about how much they have consumed, and how safe it is to drive, have been undermined by larger measures, such as the larger wine glasses in some pubs and wine bars these days, and by subtle developments such as alcopops, which people thought were non-alcoholic, but which in fact contain some alcohol.
Those considerations are important in assessing a safe level of drinking for people getting behind a driving wheel today. I think that I am right in saying that it is still the Minister’s official position that it is best for a vehicle driver not to drink at all. The law says something different in its tolerance of what we can consume. The practical situation in the bar room has changed, however, and drivers ought to be more cautious about how much they drink.
I want to address the safety issue in a different way and consider the effect of alcohol on competence to drive a vehicle. Between 50 mg and 80 mg, the average driver is about two to two and a half times more likely to be involved in a road crash. That is because of the effect of alcohol on their judgment and reactions, and their ability to react to situations in front of them. For young and inexperienced drivers the risk is as much as five times greater. That is why in 1998 the Government said in a consultation paper called “Combating Drink Driving: the Next Steps” that they were minded to lower the alcohol limits for drinking and driving.
In the White Paper on transport in 2000, the Government said that the reduction would be made in the European context, and everybody awaited the pronouncement of the European Union Commission with baited breath. In fact, the Commission’s pronouncement in 2001 was slightly disappointing. It  recommended a drink-driving limit across Europe of about 50 mg, but that it would be left to member states to decide their own limit, to which I am sure some Opposition Members would say, “Hurrah—our sovereignty preserved.”
As a result, most states followed the recommendation and adopted a lower limit of 50 mg. Not all of them did. One country among the present 25 EU member states has a higher level than Britain—Cyprus, which has a limit of 90 mg. Two others have stuck with us at 80 mg—Luxembourg and Ireland. A few went past the 50 mg. Sweden, Poland and Estonia have limits of 20 mg. Some have gone the whole hog and have said that the limit should be zero. They include the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. Members may be relieved to hear that I do not think that we should set the limit at zero. There are situations in which we naturally produce some alcohol in our blood, perhaps as a result of a medical condition or a treatment that we are undergoing.

Stephen Ladyman: I think that it is appropriate to point out that when the Commission reviewed the levels across Europe, it also pointed out that the UK was one of the two best performing countries on blood alcohol and driving, alongside Sweden. Our higher limit is not preventing us from having good performance.

David Kidney: I think that the number of deaths when the Commission expressed those views, using the figure for 1999, was about 520 a year. I am reminding the Minister and the Committee that in 2004, there were 590 deaths. If we were to go back to the Commission and ask it how it thinks we are performing today, it might gently suggest that we should look again at its recommendation of a lower limit.

Stephen Ladyman: What my hon. Friend says is true, but the number of serious injuries related to drink has gone down in the same period.

David Kidney: I do not deny that, but the statistics that I gave include serious injuries caused by drinking and driving on British roads. In 2003, there were 17,000 serious injuries, and in 2004 there were 19,000. I do not know whether the Minister is disagreeing with me, but I am saying that an alarm bell is ringing. If we ignore the issue, it will be very sad both for us and for the people who will die on the roads in accidents that, if we had acted, we could have averted.
After having said that they were minded to lower the limit and that they would do so in the European context, the Government walked away from that decision in 2002. They announced that the limit would stay as it was and that they would rely on existing enforcement and penalties to crack down on drink-driving. I hesitate to say that, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire reminded us in our last sitting, since 2002 the number of road traffic police to enforce the drink-driving laws has fallen. I question whether the Government have done the things that they said they would do instead of reducing the limit, which is one  good thing that could have been done. To answer the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I am not suggesting that that is the only thing that we should do. I shall come to that in a moment.
In terms of public confidence, now is a good time to make the proposed change because of people’s concern, driven by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, about binge drinking and its consequences. The Minister referred to people who drink later at night, wake up the next morning and get in the car when they are still above the legal limit. People are concerned about such issues. Lowering the limit now would be a good antidote to people’s concerns about the 2003 Act.
I know that people will be worried that fewer customers would drive to rural pubs if the limit were lowered. I think that that is wrong. Pubs are widening the range of services that they offer to attract a wider clientele. There are meals, coffees and non-alcoholic drinks instead of alcohol, and there are some very good schemes about nominated drivers that we should all do our utmost to support. We can make a success of lowering the legal limit without harming people’s businesses.
I shall move on to some arguments that the Minister might rehearse when he responds to the debate. If lowering the alcohol limit is not the best way to lower the death toll from drinking and driving, what is? That has not been done through more road policing, because the number of traffic police has fallen. I welcome, as I did on Second Reading, the road policing commitment that the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers signed in January 2005. It would be nice to see that commitment backed more firmly across government and by police forces. The problem has certainly not been addressed with more roadside breath tests. I shall come to that point in more detail when we discuss new clause 2, which I think the Government also oppose. We carry out fewer breath tests than most European police services.
We require a balanced package of additional measures, because the number of deaths is going in the wrong direction. Lowering the limit is just one among the package of measures needed. How many lives would that measure alone save? There is regular research that is constantly updated, and in the House of Commons research paper, the most common quoted figures suggest that 50 fatalities, 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries per year would be avoided.
I want to mention the work of Professor Richard Allsop of University college London, who updated his own calculation last year and came to a slightly higher figure, saying that 65 lives a year could be saved if we lowered the limit. Again, we are talking about people who drive somewhere near—just below or above—the current legal limit of 80 mg. Professor Allsop makes an assumption about how many of those people would adjust their behaviour because the law had changed and obey the new rule. That is how he came to the figure of 65 lives a year saved as a result of this one measure.
The supporters of the proposal are many and wide ranging. I should like to mention PACTS—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—and, in doing so, declare an interest. I chaired PACTS for six years, until last year, and this year I remain a member, although I am no longer an officer. PACTS strongly supports this measure, as does the BMA, for an obvious reason. Doctors see the results of drink-driving in their surgeries and accident and emergency departments; they provide the treatment to try to save lives, and they strongly support lowering the limit.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents also supports this measure. In a press release on 11 January, it urged the Government to ditch the current drink-drive limit in favour of a lower one, because too many motorists think that it is safe to try to drink up to what is clearly not a safe limit. That document contains a quote from Kevin Clinton, ROSPA’s head of road safety, in the context of releasing figures for Christmas and new year breath tests by police forces:
“Three hundred people caught drinking and driving each day in December shows far too many think they can get away with drinking and driving. They believe the current legal limit of 80 mg is a safe one and it is not. We want to see the limit reduced to 50 mg, because between 50 mg and 80 mg you are two to two-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in an accident and six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than with no alcohol in your system.”
ROSPA is a strong supporter.
I contacted the Association of Chief Police Officers about today’s debate and asked for its view. Hugh Alford e-mailed me:
“ACPO has long supported the call for a lower drink-drive limit (to bring it in line with other European nations and rationalise enforcement) and this was reiterated again by Mr. Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of south Yorkshire and head of ACPO road policing, in ... evidence he gave the other day at the Transport Select Committee.”
Other supporters include the charity and pressure group, Brake—although it wants a lower limit of 20 mg, so I disappoint it by arguing for 50 mg—the Safer Streets Coalition, a coalition of many organisations with a keen interest in road safety, and AA members.
Having put my arguments why we ought to consider making that reduction, I want to deal new clause 2 and with a question about increasing the ability of the police to test people who are driving for the level of alcohol in their blood. The current law is that a police constable can stop any vehicle at any time for any reason, but not specifically for the purpose of administering a breath test. A landmark case said that if the police officer stopped a vehicle for one reason and, in conversation with the driver, smelled alcohol and suspected that they were breaking the law, that was a good enough reason to administer the test. The usual three grounds on which a police officer can ask for a test are as follows: first, reasonable cause to suspect alcohol in a driver’s body; secondly, the commission of a moving traffic offence; and thirdly, the driver having been involved in a crash.
The current testing levels in the UK are among the lowest in the European Union. Again, the House of Commons research paper sets out the statistics.  Apparently, we stop and breath test one in 67 head of population on our roads, compared with one in 30 in Spain, one in 16 in the Netherlands and a curious one in four in Finland, which seems to be extensive testing. A study done in 1998 in Switzerland, which I know is not a member of the EU, found that random breath testing was one of the most cost-effective safety measures that could be introduced to reduce drink-driving fatalities and serious injuries. This new clause does not suggest that there should be random testing, and I do not argue for it. It would be too intrusive and would concentrate too much power in the hands of the police, and there would be too much public opposition.
I suggest an intermediate position between the existing law, which is very restrictive, as I have explained, and random testing, which is too broad. That intermediate position is called targeted testing. The police would be able to test in an area or on a particular road if they had reasonable cause to suspect that it was a place where a lot of drink-driving was going on. I suggest that such reasonable cause would usually arise from intelligence received by the police; for example, it might be known that a local pub was staying open late into the night and that the same people seemed to be there for long periods. That would allow the police to set up a testing place on the road and to test lots of people.
New clause 2 also proposes safeguards. The police would be able to exercise that right only if they had information that proved that they had reasonable cause, and it would last only for a short period. This measure, which could be used to address the rising tide of fatalities from drink-driving, also appeared in a Government document of 1998, “Combating drink-driving—next steps”, and it has been drafted similarly to the police stop-and-search power in the Knives Act 1997.
There are some welcome measures in the Bill, and I wish to add two more to make a balanced approach to tackling what is a serious problem. Some of the measures I propose will hit more on one group than another, but taken as a whole, we should be able to hit on all the groups in this country that are likely to drink and drive. To those who say that some people completely ignore the limit and drink miles more alcohol than is safe and legal and that they are the ones on whom we should concentrate, I say that I listen to Professor Allsop. In a news release last year, he brought his evidence up to date in respect of the 65 lives a year that we could save. In response to a similar point, he said that when he received advice on making his home safe against crime, he was told that he should put window locks on the windows and extra locks on the door, and that he did not ignore the advice about window locks because fewer people could get through the window than through the door. Instead, he thought it was sensible to put both sets of locks on so that nobody got into his house by either means. The situation is the same in respect of new clause 1 and new clause 2. They are both necessary—not just one or the other. That is why I wanted to have this debate.

Stephen Hammond: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. All Committee members want a reduction in the number of people killed on our roads through drink-driving, including both those who bring that upon themselves and, perhaps more importantly, those who take others with them. However, I am not sure that the evidence that he has given us will convince us that that will happen if we enact the proposed measures.
The hon. Gentleman gave us a quantification of limit and risk—two times and five times—and I would be interested to know where that came from and how it was calculated. I am sure he can elucidate that point. I would also like to know whether he has done any work on the evidence from overseas. He spoke about a number of countries that have reduced their limits to 50 mg. Portugal is a country that I know particularly well. It had a history of having almost no drink-driving limit at all, but it has now adopted the 50 mg limit. I am unsure whether there has been any decrease in drink-related deaths on Portuguese roads—and, indeed, whether there has been an improvement in the culture of Portuguese driving—as result. However, the situation might be different in other countries. The Committee would be interested to learn whether there was clear evidence from overseas that the reduction in the limit had had some effect.
I am also concerned about new clause 2. The hon. Gentleman says that the powers of the police are restricted, but I disagree. I was stopped for drink-driving two years ago. The police had set themselves up very effectively in a village in Hertfordshire; they took up positions on three roads so that, whichever way drivers left that village, they would meet one of the police cars. The police officers asked drivers whether they had been out for dinner or to a pub that night. If the answer was yes, they were asked whether they had had an alcoholic drink of any nature. If the answer to that question was also yes, the police officer said that he might have reasonable grounds to believe that they were over the limit. Whether random or targeted, that procedure is clearly available at present. I had had a drink that night and I was pretty certain that I had kept to the limit. Even so, it was the most nervous 30 seconds of my life at that stage.

David Kidney: In another Committee in another context, I was described last week as a jobbing lawyer, because I was a solicitor before I was elected to Parliament. I hesitate to give a legal opinion without the full facts, as any lawyer would say, but I suggest that if the police set up a roadside test knowing that they would ask everyone about alcohol so that they could carry out a breath test it would be illegal. As I said, however, the police can stop people for other reasons and can then form a reasonable suspicion and conduct a breath test.

Stephen Hammond: I am happy to take the advice of a lawyer, jobbing or otherwise. All I can say is that that is how the police operated the system in the instance that I mentioned. We were asked no other questions. There was no other inspection of my vehicle. The  police clearly have found a way of targeting drink-driving, and they particularly wanted to target one village. I guess they thought that as there were three or four pubs, there were many potential drink-drivers.

Tom Harris: I am reluctant to muddy the waters even further by bringing in Scottish law and practice, but I point out that every Christmas and new year, Strathclyde police set up exactly the kind of roadside inspection area that the hon. Gentleman described and randomly test drivers for alcohol intake. That is accepted without objection every year because it is seen as an effective way of clamping down on drink-driving and the resulting deaths and injuries.

Stephen Hammond: Scottish law is even further outside my legal competence, so I shall not pursue the point, but I am grateful for that intervention and the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
We are concerned about the unintended consequence of new clause 2, which I am sure the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) did not intend. Under proposed subsection (1), I could have two or three drinks in a House of Commons Bar tonight, walk out of the building to my vehicle and be stopped by a police inspector who may take the view that I might be involved in a drink-driving incident. As the new clause is phrased, people can be stopped before they go anyway near a car and breath tested. On that basis alone, we think that the new clause would not work and is not fit for purpose.

Paul Rowen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on his well-argued case both for a revision in blood alcohol limits and for introducing some means of codifying when police inspections should take place. Regardless of what other hon. Members have said, he rightly pointed out that the police should reasonably stop someone only when another offence has taken place. At Christmas or where places may be open late under the new licensing laws and there is a suspicion that large numbers of people are drinking and may be over the limit, the new clause would give the police powers to act. In those cases, the issue is very much about sending messages out to people about what is and what is not acceptable.
As the hon. Gentleman said, while we may have led the way in terms of the introduction of drink-drive laws, other countries have adopted more stringent laws and implement them more effectively. He has quoted figures showing a rise in the number of deaths. The Minister may say that some continental countries have a worse problem than we do; perhaps that is why they have tightened the law more than we have.

Stephen Ladyman: I would argue that they all do.

Paul Rowen: That may be the case. Nevertheless, when it can be shown that by lowering the limit, 65 lives and a couple of thousand injuries a year can be saved, that is not to be sniffed at. We are discussing the Road Safety Bill, and I believe that such a measure is  a sensible and effective means of improving road safety. I commend the hon. Member for Stafford for tabling the new clauses.

Greg Knight: I read recently of the case of an Estonian priest who was charged with driving while under the influence of drink. When he got to court he claimed that it was an act of God. He said that he had been obliged that day to take communion and, because it was a rule of the Church that wine had to be taken, wine was in his system. The report that I read did not reveal what the judgment of God was, but the court would have none of it, and he was convicted, in my view rightly.
The area is a difficult one, in which what is correct is not necessarily absolute. We must make a judgment as to where we should draw the line in framing a law that the majority of law-abiding people deem to be fair and therefore respect and obey it. On balance, I think that our present law is about right. The police have very wide powers. We have heard from the hon. Member for Stafford the grounds on which the police can stop a vehicle, but in reality that means that they can stop a vehicle for any reason, as is evidenced by the many breath tests that take place at Christmas time, which by all accounts are within the law. I am not convinced, therefore, that we need to take the step urged on us today, and my instinct is to vote to retain the status quo.
If I may, I should like to refer en passant back to clause 11, and say to the Minister that I gladly accept his offer to go out with a vehicle examiner.

Owen Paterson: I want briefly to pick up on one of the important points raised by the hon. Member for Stafford. I congratulate him on his speech, which I listened to carefully.
We have to live with the world as it is, and that world is one where we have fewer police. I am not making a tiresome political point, but the number has gone down from 9,201 in 1996–97 to 7,103 in 2005. We have a limited number of traffic police. Much as one understands the hon. Gentleman’s argument, surely it is better to get everyone below 80 mg first and to allow the limited number of police to concentrate their efforts on those drinkers before going further. As the figures that he read out show, despite the enormous improvement over the past 20 years, drink-driving is still a problem.

Tom Harris: Surely the number of available traffic officers is irrelevant to the argument, because the existing drink-drive limit is self-enforceable. A lower limit would be similarly self-enforceable, because it is not for the police to enforce the vast majority of judgments where drivers decide to take their car out. We do not obey the law because we will get caught otherwise; we obey it because it is the law. I am perhaps not making myself entirely clear. If the Committee and the Government decide to reduce the level to 50 mg, surely that would be a self-enforceable law that would not depend on the number of police officers on our roads.

Owen Paterson: That was a helpful intervention. To some extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the problem is with those on over 80 mg. More accidents, misjudgments and mistakes will occur among those over 80 mg than among those between 50 mg and 80 mg.
My contention is that we have come a long way. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made an important point: we must do this by consent. That goes back to the point that I made several times on Tuesday: we cannot coerce 34 million drivers. There has been a major change during the past 20 years in public perception. The vast majority of drivers recognise the 80 mg limit and try to stay within it. The problem is with those who are over 80 mg, who are likely to make more dangerous misjudgments. Therefore, they are the people whom the limited number of police should concentrate on. That is the simple point that I want to make.
The other important point is that we have the confidence of the driving public on this matter. There has been a major cultural change, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made an important point in that regard. To go lower at this stage might create a barrier between the enforcers and the enforced—the barrier that we want to get away from. We want collaboration. That goes back to Peel’s concept of policing, which I mentioned on Tuesday. The status quo may not be ideal, but it is about right, and the efforts that we make should bear down on those who are over 80 mg.

Tom Harris: I rise again to make a genuine inquiry. Is the hon. Gentleman aware—if he is not, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford may be—of any opinion poll evidence showing whether there is public support for a change in the legal limit? Once again, the Committee seems to have been relying heavily on anecdotal evidence, but from my own such experience, I know of very few people who would object to a reduction from 80 mg to 50 mg. If the opinion polls say otherwise, I should be happy to accept that. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any empirical evidence of that kind?

Owen Paterson: I have no opinion poll evidence either way. I believe that the police should concentrate on those over 80 mg. If we looked at 50 mg to 80 mg, that would be a knock to our collaboration with the majority of the public and to their confidence, and it would give the police an enormous number of possible people to chase. I believe that we should concentrate on those on over 80 mg first. Let us get the 80 mg level firmly respected—we will discuss in a minute how that might be done—and then look further.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford argued his case well, and it is not without merit. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire put his finger on it: this is not a black-and-white issue. It is a matter of judgment in which we have to balance many different factors before reaching our opinion. I shall state my case. I will probably not convince my hon. Friend, so while I am making my comments, my  hon. Friend the Government Whip will gently twist his arm up his back. Nevertheless, I will put the case to the best of my ability, and I accept that it is a complex one.
My hon. Friend talked about the number of people whose lives are ended as a result of drink and about the rise in such deaths over recent years. I agree with him entirely: it poses a question, and it is a worrying trend. It is not a simple one, however. It is not simply that the figures have suddenly started to shoot through the roof; the figures are conflicting.
In 1979 there were 1,640 fatalities as a result of people having illegal alcohol levels and 8,300 serious casualties. In 2004 there were 590 fatalities and 2,350 serious casualties. By any measure that is a massive reduction, and clearly a trend that we want to continue. As my hon. Friend suggested, it is true that, over the past few years, the figures have begun to go up. If we concentrate for a moment on fatalities, in 2001 there were 530. The figure went up to 550 in 2002, 580 in 2003 and 590 in 2004. The low point was in 1998–99, when there were 460 fatalities. On the face of it, that is clearly a worrying trend, but it is not necessarily indicative of a change in society’s attitudes. If we consider the number of serious casualties over that same period—we might argue that in many cases the difference between someone dying in a road accident and being seriously injured is more a matter of good fortune than judgment—we see that there were 2,690 in 2001. The figure rose to 2,790 in 2002, but it has steadily been going down since. It was 2,590 in 2003, and 2,350 in 2004.
Exactly the same pattern is mirrored in the figures for slight injuries involving people with illegal blood alcohol levels. In other words, the number of accidents involving alcohol that cause casualties is going down, while the number of fatalities is going up. It is not reasonable to argue that society’s attitude to drink-driving is changing in some malevolent way, and that therefore we need to change the blood alcohol limit to send a different message to society.
The figures for fatalities or serious injuries related to illegal levels of blood alcohol since 1979 appear not to be a gradual progression. I managed to do some thermodynamic calculations for hon. Members on the back of an envelope the other day, but, as my mental acuity does not extend to statistical significance calculations on the back of an envelope, I cannot be definitive about this, but it seems that progress is made by steps. For a few years, the serious casualty figures hovered around 8,000 or 7,900. Suddenly there was a drop to 7,300 between 1980 and 1981. The figure went back to 8,000 but then steadied around 6,800 for a few years. There were step changes to about 5,000 some time in the middle of the 1980s, to 3,000 in the early 1990s and to about 2,500 in the late 1990s, where it has hovered ever since. In other words, it is not a gradual move from high to low and getting better every year. The changes seem to go in steps. We have to ask why that is, what is changing, what creates the steps and why there is the complexity of serious injuries decreasing while deaths are increasing.

Brian Iddon: It is more common today for drivers to drive under the influence of more than one drug. As poly-drug use is on the increase, I suggest to the Minister that those who drive under the influence of alcohol are more likely also to be driving under the influence of another drug, which could account for the fact that deaths are increasing. It seems remarkable that we are arguing today about the limits for one drug but do not discuss the limits of any other drug, whether licit or illicit, that might affect a person’s driving.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that people are using multiple drugs these days. I made the point in the Transport Committee the other day that young people in particular may designate a driver who abstains from alcohol but sits and smokes a joint while everybody is drinking alcohol, and then drives everyone home. Many young people do not realise the effects of illegal substances.
Indeed, the point was made to me that people do not realise the effects of legal substances that they may use. I entirely concur. Prescription drugs carry messages these days such as, “This compound may make you drowsy. Do not drive, if affected.” However, half the time people do not know whether they are affected. One of the things that was found out about alcohol in the early days was that many people did not believe that they were affected by it. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has helped me to make is that we are not talking about a simple issue. We must examine what has created the step changes over the years. Was it a change in the Government’s policy? Was it a change in police enforcement? Was it a change in advertising? Was it a change in educational efforts made over the years by successive Governments? What is happening at the moment? We have a strange increase in deaths while the number of serious injuries is decreasing.
I concur entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that the figures are asking us questions that we need to answer. We must look with great care at what is happening. We might need to undertake further road-side surveys. We might need to carry out more research. We need to look at our advertising and, in particular, the way in which we enforce the existing laws.
A future Government might want to propose a change to the blood alcohol level on the basis of the research, but we are not yet in a position to do so. Some 590 people were killed in accidents involving people who were over the 80 mg level, but it seems that there were only 60 fatalities involving those who had alcohol levels of between 50 mg and 80 mg, so where should we be putting our resources? It is obvious that I should be encouraging the police to enforce the law at 80 mg and above, and to do so more stringently than they are at present before I ask them to disburse resources on people driving with between 50 mg and 80 mg of alcohol.
I said clearly at the Transport Committee, as I did on Second Reading, that I can envisage a situation in which a future Government will want to implement my  hon. Friend’s amendments. Friend. We are just not at that point now. The correct thing to do is to enforce measures at the 80 mg level and get that right first.

David Kidney: I want to correct a slight inaccuracy in what my hon. Friend said about the proportion of the 590 deaths who were near the present level of 80 mg. Professor Allsop said that another 65 lives might be saved if the limit were lowered, but that is because of his conservative estimates of the numbers who would transfer to a lower level, but who were already above. Some deaths occur at possibly twice that level. I do not disagree that the majority of the deaths occur when people are miles over the limit, but the number of those who were near the legal limit is certainly many more than the 65.

Stephen Ladyman: I guess that we can argue about the figures. I shall certainly reconsider the research to see whether it influences my opinion. I think that my hon. Friend agrees that the majority of deaths have occurred when people were above the current legal limit. While we are asking ourselves such difficult questions, it is appropriate to ask the police to target their resources on better enforcement measures at that limit. While we are doing that, we must consider the long-term trends and the way in which we go from plateau to plateau, and ask ourselves what causes that.
In particular, I am determined to get to the root of why we might be seeing a steady increase in deaths, while the number of serious injuries is going down. Are we dealing with a hard-core drink-driver who does not care about whether the amount is 50 mg or 80 mg? He has had a skinful and drives anyway; he drives so fast and is so out of control that he is more likely to be killed in the accident. Perhaps that has something to do with it. We need answers to such questions before we take the step of going to a 50 mg limit. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, we must not break the bond that has been established with the driver. The driver must see the fairness and reasonableness of our action to respect it.
On Tuesday, I said that, if people do not respect the law on speeding, they will not obey it and that that makes it much more difficult to enforce. By trying to build a mutual respect and by getting drivers to respect the fact that we are taking fair and proportionate decisions, we get them to obey the law more. That is a better way forward. Were we to reduce the 80 mg limit to 50 mg without solid evidence and without being able to make the case to the driving public and explain why it would benefit them, we would be in danger of breaking the bond that we are trying to establish.
In encouraging my hon. Friend to withdraw his motion, I repeat that I can see the merit of his argument. I can see a situation in which a future Government may want to implement the provisions of the new clause, but I do not think that it would be right to do so now. I also ask him to withdraw his other new clause, on the powers to test, because we have consulted ACPO and others and they are satisfied with the powers that they have at the moment. They do not see any need for further powers.
Rather than test your patience when we come to clause stand part, Mrs. Anderson, I will say now that clause 13 is a change intended to fix an oversight in the law, and is relatively straightforward. I hope that members of the Committee will support it.

David Kidney: The good news for my hon. Friend is that this is the stand part debate, and I therefore do not need to withdraw the motions for my new clauses. They can however be discussed again on Report if they are selected by Mr. Speaker. We will see what happens if so.
My hon. Friend was right to predict that I would not agree with him, but I think that he is an excellent Minister. He is doing a really good job and he is quite right to say that this is a complex issue. I hope that he would give me credit for having the bigger picture in mind and for suggesting a balanced range of measures, even though I have focused on new clause 1 in this debate. While I am on my feet and getting all these brownie points, I should say that the poor Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), should be defended from the Minister’s suggestion that he had my arm twisted behind my back. I have had nothing but the greatest courtesy from him throughout these proceedings.
I shall respond briefly to some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked me where the calculation of increasing risk comes from. The House of Commons research paper is a wonderful starting point. On page 20 it reminds us that studies have been going on since the 1960s. Today, the seminal calculation that everybody cites is from the Transport Research Laboratory’s research in 1997, written by a man named Maycock. There is also an excellent statement of drink and drugs policy called “Driving for Work: Drink and Drugs” on ROSPA’s website. It takes readers through the risks and dangers of drinking and driving. It is common sense that when we have had alcohol our judgment is impaired and our reactions are slower.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon also said that there was some weakness in the drafting of new clause 2. In a sense, that is irrelevant. If we think it is a good issue, we will get the wording right with all the officials at our disposal. The issue is whether the police need the extra, targeted power laid out in the new clause. Considering the situation that we are in and the resources that we have, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire pointed out, giving the police more power to use their existing resources more effectively would be a better way to get the most out of our policing. That is why I tabled the new clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale for his support. I made the same argument in Committee on the previous Road Safety Bill and the Liberal Democrats were equally supportive then.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire spoke about the important issue of public acceptance, drawing the line at the right place and being fair. That is why I took so long to talk about the assumption in my youth that two pints of beer was the right amount  to remain under the limit, and about how that view has been eroded by developments in the industry. The public’s attitude to the Licensing Act 2003 and increased discussion on binge drinking show that there is an appetite for Government to do something. We could establish a new comfortable assumption that if someone has one drink, they will definitely be under the limit of 50 mg, but if they have more than one, they will be taking a risk. That could be a useful enforcement tool and might keep more people safe.
I was asked whether there was any empirical evidence. The RAC Foundation is not in favour of my new clause, but its opinion polls on the public’s attitude to lowering the limit show that 60 per cent. of motorists support a limit of 50 mg. Therefore, I might make the argument to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire that there is public appetite for changing the limit. He said that given that the police manage to do a lot of testing at Christmas, why do they need extra powers? I remind him that more than 9,000 of the tests carried out at Christmas 2005 were positive. Let us ask ourselves what is happening on the roads when the police are not carrying out high-profile testing. Mini Christmas campaigns should take place throughout the year, and the extra powers in new clause 2 would enable the police to facilitate that.
What motivates me to continue arguing, even though the Minister has told me to stop and Conservative Front Benchers have told me that they will not support my proposal? I feel an urgency and a determination about all those unnecessary deaths on the roads. Tomorrow it could be somebody I know; it could be a member of my family. I do not want to think that I did not do everything possible to reduce the death toll on our roads. New clause 2 offers a safe way to reduce that toll.
If I cannot persuade the Minister to change the Government’s policy, will he have a word with the Whip to arrange a free vote on Report?

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Alcohol ignition interlocks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: Perhaps the name of the hon. Member for Stafford was noted in the Whip’s book—he will recover.
We are not convinced by the proposal for alcohol ignition interlocks. A recent report from the European Transport Safety Council notes that alco-locks have been used in rehabilitation programmes for drink-driving offenders in the USA, Australia and Canada. It claims:
“experiences in the USA and Canada have shown that the interlocks can lead to a 40 to 95 per cent. reduction in the rate of drink-driving repeat offences”.
It continues:
“Existing studies clearly indicate however that this reduction in recidivism is limited to the period of alcolock installation in the car, or at best for a limited time thereafter”.
European trials have been limited. In Sweden, 900 drink-driving offenders have been on an alcohol interlock programme, but about a third of them dropped out because the programme was strict. Finland is only just about to introduce an alcohol interlock programme lasting one year for all drink-driving offenders, and France has begun a pilot project, with only 40 participants, in Annecy. The UK is cited in the report as also taking part.
The European Transport Safety Council refers to P. R. Marques, who has written an in-depth report for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calveston, Maryland. The report states:
“20 years beyond their initial field trials in several California counties, interlock devices and programs have reached a high level of maturity”.
However,
“Researchers will need to continue to evaluate interlock effectiveness evidence to determine if interlock programs can reduce recidivism systemwide, not just in small programs, and no one has yet documented and overall crash reduction due to interlocks although alcohol-related crashes are almost certainly reduced. Much more needs to be done to enhance the impact of interlock programmes, through integration and other counter-measure programmes, most notably alcohol treatment and rehabilitation ... An interlock programme requires some level of administrative control and monitoring”
and needs to
“make good use of the dual functions of control and monitoring.”
Although it admits that this is a problem in all societies, it thinks that rehabilitation and other measures are more important.
That finding is confirmed by a survey conducted on behalf of the European Union by the Belgian Institute for Road Safety, which had a project running from December 2003 to December 2005 that came up in some cases with no answers. On relevance—how the project objective is linked to the programme objective—the answer is:
“This can however not be assessed yet.”
On effectiveness, and whether the project has reached its objective, it says:
“No project results were available for the evaluation.”
There is a blank, rather than an answer to the question about whether the results support the programme objectives. On utility, the answer to whether the project includes a baseline and a potential impact assessment is a blank, and for sustainability—whether the project results will last after the project has been completed—there is another blank.
These are early days. The system has been extensively used in the States, where the evidence is that these gadgets, or machines, work only as long as they are in place. It would, in some ways, be irresponsible to install them, because they have not reduced the rate of recidivism and offenders seem to go back to their bad ways afterwards.
That is confirmed by the final report that I should like to call in aid—which goes right across the board, on alcohol as a problem with motoring—by Dr. James Nichols of the National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration and H. Lawrence Ross of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at the university of New Mexico. Their report touches on our earlier debate; they
“feel that swift and sure license actions provide the greatest potential on both counts”
on reducing drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes. Their
“model system would provide for mandatory minimum fines ... and mandatory minimum hard license suspensions of no less than 90 days, followed by a probationary or restricted license period”,
after which, there would be
“alcohol education, assessment, and referral programs.”
They say:
“To make license actions more effective, greater emphasis would be placed on keeping suspended and revoked drivers from driving during their license withdrawal period.”
The conclusion is that taking licences away for longer periods has a more beneficial impact.
It seems to me, having rattled through some research papers, that work on this measure is a bit premature. We are all in favour of and open to new ideas, but I think that this system should be kept at the trial stage in limited numbers and not be written into the Bill as a major part of the Government’s alcohol programme. I particularly do not like the idea of
“a lesser period of disqualification (“the reduced period”)”,
in clause 14(3), which may be given if an offender is prepared to take on one of these gadgets. It appears that the effect lasts only as long as the gadget is in the car and, from the evidence that I have quoted showing that people sadly revert afterwards, taking people’s licences away seems to have a bigger impact. Actually, the biggest shock is a brief period of imprisonment.
All credit must go to the Government for looking at new ideas, but this system is in the very early stages in Europe and we should see how other countries get on. By all means let us have some small trials in this country, but I do not think that it is appropriate to build this initiative into the Bill as it stands.

Lee Scott: In cultures where this method has been tried, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend, it has been proved not only that there might be issues and problems with it, but that it can be overcome. Various devices have allegedly come into force that can give false readings to allow the car to be started, and enable the person still to drink and drive. I do not think that there is anyone in Committee who is not trying to stop drink-driving, but I believe that the enforcement of the current laws by police, as mentioned by the Minister, and the enforcement of penalties would be a better way forward. Let us have tests, but not as part of a major Bill.

Stephen Ladyman: Both hon. Gentlemen will be glad to know that I share their analysis to a large extent; it is just on the conclusions that I differ. They are both right—it is early days for the technology, and I can give them an absolute assurance that there is no way that the Government will allow widespread use of it without proceeding carefully and step by step, with proper experimentation and proper research to build up the evidence that it is worth while. Clause 14 must  be examined in conjunction with clause 15, in which we make it clear that we can implement alco-locks experimentally at some point.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) that there may well be devices that can fool the current generation of alco-locks, but there will be improvements, and we will make tests and take cognisance of the results.
I encourage hon. Members to remember the constraints under which the Government operate when they need primary legislation. The Bill went through its stages in the previous Parliament but fell because of the general election. For the second year on the run, there is a major slot in the parliamentary timetable to discuss these issues. It may well be several years hence before there is another slot for primary legislation that focuses on road safety, and if we do not today take the powers that we need in order to do such experiments, then, if the rest of Europe and the world start to make progress, we shall not be in a position to take advantage.
We agree that the technology is in many respects untested and a lot of work is needed, but we shall proceed only step by step as we accumulate evidence that it could work. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to take powers today that allow us to be involved in the work.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister said that to a large extent he shared the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. Does he share the analysis, therefore, of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, that the technology would most properly be used for offenders who have been caught more than once—after their disqualification and as an extra penalty—rather than for first-time offenders, which would let them off their sentence a little bit? Surely we should be reinforcing the message to drink-drivers, and the measure should be an extra, punitive one.

Stephen Ladyman: I agree partially. It is not a measure that should be used for first-time offenders. It could be appropriate for repeat offenders—people who clearly have had an alcohol dependency problem and who, in order to get their licence back, would have to demonstrate not only that they have served their disqualification period, but that they have been through a rehabilitation process of some sort and have addressed their drinking. The disqualification period might be slightly reduced if they agreed to take an alco-lock.
I hear from many Members with constituents who have been in such a position, who have had repeat drink-driving offences and who want their licences back. The DVLA says, “The Secretary of State takes the view that we can’t be certain you are not going to reoffend.” They then have to go to their doctor and get a doctor’s note saying that the doctor thinks that they will not drink again, but sadly, we know that alcoholism is not curable. There is always the possibility of people reoffending; even those who have  been sober for many years sometimes start to drink again and may be tempted to reoffend. Once someone has been a repeat offender, it is difficult to convince people that they should get their licence back. I see the proposal as a potential tool for somebody who has been through rehabilitation. If there is a feeling that they may deserve to get their licence back and that they are not going to reoffend, maybe voluntarily agreeing to a alco-lock will allow them to convince those in the system that they should be allowed to drive again.
These things need time to bottom out, however, and to be done carefully, in the light of experimentation, research and results gathered from around the world. I assure hon. Members that if they do not work or research starts to indicate that they have no merit, they will not be used. Given the difficulties of getting primary legislation and the need for it even to do such experiments, it is nevertheless appropriate to take the powers now. Given my reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will support clause stand part.

Owen Paterson: I am not convinced. We have evidence from the United States, which uses the devices extensively. People there are quite clear that the devices work only so long as they are installed. The recent massive survey of drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes firmly concluded that action on licences, withdrawal of the ability to drive and ultimately the withdrawal of freedom have a longer-term impact. I was interested to hear that the programmes are experimental. Experiments are going on, and presumably we can liaise with our colleagues in Sweden, France and Belgium, which are carrying out trials, but I am worried that that would be a major distraction. Getting the programmes up and running will take a lot of time and effort. According to the research that I have seen, a lot of monitoring is involved in them. I feel, especially after hearing the speech made by hon. Member for Stafford, that the problem should be addressed by the withdrawal of licences, better enforcement of the existing laws and, if necessary, imprisonment. Conservative Members will not therefore vote for clause stand part.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 11, Noes 4.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Experimental period for section 14

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: As the Committee has decided to go ahead with the experimental devices, and as the clause limits the time, we will not oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Retro-reflective markings

Brian Iddon: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in clause 16, page 21, line 14, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall, by 2007,’.

Janet Anderson: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 77, in clause 62, page 59, line 7, at end insert—
‘()Section 16 shall come into force on 1st January 2007’.

Brian Iddon: I am aware that the clause, which deals with retro-reflective markings for heavy goods vehicles above 7.5 tonne in weight, was inserted as an amendment to the Bill in the other place. I will not detain the Committee by reading out the full description of the vehicles that it covers. I am also aware that my hon. Friend the Minister has tabled an amendment to remove the clause, and I look forward to hearing his reasoning on that.
The issue has been debated for more than two years now and the Government have given various excuses as to why no action can be taken at present, at least by Britain unilaterally. Currently, under both the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulation 48, which regulates installation of lighting and reflective devices on vehicles, retro-reflective tape can be fitted to HGVs but it is not mandatory. Installation is at the discretion of the manufacturer or user. A technical specification—UNECE regulation 104 for high quality retro-reflective tape—is available for the manufacture of such tape and the tape is commercially available. It can be used to emphasise the contours of large vehicles, especially their length and width.
I use the motorways quite a lot, as I guess many hon. Members do, mainly to travel between my constituency and London. Most HGVs are now extremely well lit— some are over-lit and look like Christmas trees as they approach—but others are extremely poorly lit and are not clearly conspicuous at night and in conditions of poor visibility. They are obviously more conspicuous on lit roads, but on country lanes without lighting they can be very dangerous. The Transport Research Laboratory, whose work I admire, has estimated that 30 to 34 occupants of cars are killed every year in collisions with the tail end of HGVs and that another 40 to 44 people are killed in collisions with the side of HGVs.  Those are not insignificant numbers, and we have to remember that serious injuries also result from such collisions.
Large vehicles represent a traffic hazard, especially when they are moving slowly relative to the other vehicles on the road or are stationary. When slowly crossing a stream of traffic at a crossroads, for example, they are especially hazardous if they are not properly lit. Accident data suggest that larger vehicles are over-represented in fatal accidents. In 2003, HGVs represented only 1.7 per cent. of all vehicles on the road, yet they were involved in 15 per cent. of accidents that resulted in a fatality. They travelled six times the average distance travelled by a car per year, so those figures are not surprising.
I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that we can make progress on this issue without the need for the clause, but my worry is that he said on Second Reading that
“it may be 2010 before the provision comes in, and that is the issue on which we need to agree.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 912.]
The EU regulations to which I understand he may refer are not expected to come into force until 2011 at the earliest. By then, hundreds more people will have collided with the tail ends and sides of HGVs and been killed or injured, sometimes seriously. The families that will be traumatised will not forgive the Government if we delay implementing this life-saving measure much longer. As my noble Friend Lord Berkeley said—this is a no-brainer—in the debate that inserted the clause into the Bill:
“Apparently, the powers exist. Let us get on and do it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords; 22 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 1529.]

Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am in total agreement. The intention of our amendment No. 77, to which I would like to speak, is identical to that of amendment No. 95, which he tabled.
We have a unique chance now. The proposals have all-party support, and we have pushed the Government to a tantalising point. I will shut up soon, as I want to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter. The case is overwhelming. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made the key point that the preponderance of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles could be avoided if they could be seen better. Some 45 per cent. of all fatalities caused by road accidents occur in darkness, and the university of Darmstadt found that 37 per cent. of all side collisions with trucks at night occurred because the trucks were seen too late. The same study found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced accidents involving trucks and passenger cars in poor visibility conditions by 95 per cent. That is an astonishing figure. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the extra number of collisions. At a rate of 385 a year, by my arithmetic—perhaps the Minister is quicker than me—there will be 1,540 more collisions if we do not introduce this measure until 2011.
It seems to me that we have an overwhelming case. On Second Reading, the Minister mentioned the cost. We stress that the proposal would cost about £100 for each new vehicle. Such vehicles cost about £100,000 each. I have a figure of £17,760 million as the total cost to the UK of road accidents in 2001. That includes all the costs of health care, police, emergency services and so on. We would be asking the freight industry to spend £100 on every new heavy goods vehicle, and many of those vehicles will be worth more than £100,000. The measure could result in a saving for the industry, as the average cost of having a 7.5 tonne lorry off the road is £212 per day, according to my figures. The freight industry would be quids in as well.
In 2005, the Government commissioned a report by Loughborough university, which concluded that there is a cost benefit for fitting line or contour markings to newly registered HGVs of more than 7.5 tonne in weight. The Government then launched a consultation, and of the responses, only 71 opposed mandatory retro-reflective markings. The Government spent the money on the report and conducted a consultation, and both were strongly in favour of mandatory markings. We now hope this afternoon that the Minister will act. We have crept from a situation in which his predecessors in this place and Ministers in the other place saying that new powers had to be introduced. His predecessor in March 2004 said that we had to wait for information from the European Commission. The Commission came out strongly in favour of markings. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), then an Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said that there had to be a review and consultation. Baroness Crawley confirmed that if there was
“a more favourable cost/benefit ratio ... My department will now consider how best ... to take this forward.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 439.]
There was consultation, which was overwhelmingly in favour, and the Minister said on Second Reading that we could make progress on the issue without legislation.
However, the Minister then stated that
“it may be 2010 before the provision comes in, and that is the issue on which we need to agree.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 912.]
This issue falls into the second category that I mentioned in discussing the programme motion on Tuesday. We would withdraw our proposal if the Minister gave a guarantee that, if he has the powers, he would get on with it. Markings would offer rapid benefits, as was clearly explained by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. I do not understand what is holding the Government back. They have consulted, they have the European information and they have categorical statistical certainty from the university of Darmstadt that the measure will work. If the Minister has the powers, will he tell us this afternoon that he will introduce the requirement by 2007, thereby enabling us to withdraw the amendment?

Paul Rowen: This measure is really why we are here. It is the sort of measure that is inexpensive to introduce. It does not require haulage owners to have a long lead-in time to implement it. When ordering any new trucks this year, they would know that from 1 January next year the trucks would have to bear the markings. That would not be an onerous task for them, and the markings save lives. I cannot understand why the Minister is prevaricating about such a simple life-saving issue and I believe that the Committee should support the proposal.

Henry Bellingham: I rise briefly to support the amendments. I declare an interest because, a long time ago, in 1978, my late stepfather was killed when travelling south on a dual carriageway section of the A1. He drove under a lorry that was squatting in the central reservation; it had left its trailer in the fast lane and it was on an unlit section. My stepfather was obviously using dipped headlights, and at the inquest it was proven that his reaction time was so limited that no one travelling at 70 mph could have stopped in time. My point is that a disproportionate number of accidents in which people hit the trailers of articulated lorries, or indeed fixed-chassis lorries, are either fatal or very serious.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and Opposition Members have made a persuasive case, and were I going to recommend that clause 16 stand part of the Bill I would accept my hon. Friend’s amendment and allow it to come into force from 2007. However, I fear that I am not going to recommend that.
The simple situation is that we already have the powers to permit retro-reflective tape on lorries, so if, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire suggests, there is an economic benefit for the haulage industry in putting it on their new vehicles, the industry can do so now. However, we cannot make it a requirement, because of obligations under United Nations Economic Commission for Europe measures and EU directives, which mean that we are unable to make any unilateral requirement of vehicles in this country. Were we try to change the legislation in the way suggested, our partners in the European Union would certainly object and take infraction proceedings against us. Given that the European Union has indicated that it will bring its own lighting regulations into line with the UNECE measures—as soon as they have been clarified—and that we will then be able to require markings on all vehicles, the amendment and the clause are redundant and perhaps illegal.

Brian Iddon: I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment if my hon. Friend can cite a date earlier than 2011. If he cannot, will he give a pledge to the Committee that we will try to bring that date forward? We cannot wait until 2011.

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise date, because the EU directive cannot come into force until the UNECE regulations have been drafted. At the moment, we understand that that could be in 2010,  but it could be a little later. I can assure him that in so far as I can influence the date, I will do my best to make it as early as possible. Were we to pass clause 16 as it stands, we would certainly be breaking EU law and proceedings would be taken against us.
With the greatest regret, I have to advise the Committee not to accept my hon. Friend’s proposed amendment—although I suppose that the Whip may wish us to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment to give him a brief moment of success in a Committee before I advise the Committee not to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: That was a disappointing statement, because the figures scream at us. Occupants of commercial goods vehicles account for only 8 per cent. of all casualties on trunk roads, yet accidents involving such vehicles account for 26 per cent. of the total. In essence, what the Minister has said is that he is not prepared to fight his case with the European Commission, so the present position will remain until 2011 and there will be 1,540 more collisions. That is unacceptable to the Opposition, so we shall press the amendment to the vote. It would have benefits that are simple to understand. If the material was placed on trucks it would reduce the number of collisions by 385 a year. We think that that is a good idea.

Janet Anderson: There could be an opportunity to vote on amendment No. 77 later. We are now considering amendment No. 95.

Brian Iddon: Reluctantly, I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not like breaking the law, although I am tempted to break certain European laws because they are barmy. It is a personal opinion, but I think it is barmy that we have to wait until 2011 to save  lives. States like Britain should be given the chance to go ahead on these sorts of issues unilaterally without having to wait for the rest of Europe to join us.

Stephen Ladyman: I remind my hon. Friend that we have the powers to permit the tape, but not to require it. We do not need new powers in order to permit it.

Brian Iddon: I accept my hon. Friend’s point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Owen Paterson: We are strongly in favour of the clause and think that it should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 5, Noes 9.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 16 disagreed to.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Roy.]
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o’clock till Tuesday 28 March at half-past Ten o’clock.